Masimba v Singh and Another (Civil Case No. 587 of 1949)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The Supreme Court will not interfere with a Deputy Registrar's taxation of costs save in exceptional cases, as a judge is not a fit tribunal to decide questions of quantum. Under rule 5 of the Advocates' Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules, a Deputy Registrar has jurisdiction to act as Taxing Master without appointment by the Chief Justice. However, costs for correspondence with the Rent Control Board not essential to the plaintiff's case should be disallowed.
Outcome
Taxation varied; certain items disallowed and matter remitted to Registrar
Facts
The plaintiff obtained judgment in a suit for possession of a dwelling-house. The Deputy Registrar taxed the plaintiff's bill of costs, allowing Sh. 2,000 under 'Instructions to file action' (reduced from the claimed Sh. 5,000) and allowing various items relating to correspondence with the Rent Control Board. The defendant appealed the taxation, contending the instruction fee was patently excessive and that the Deputy Registrar lacked legal competence to tax the bill under the Advocates' Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules.
Issues
- Whether the Deputy Registrar allowed an amount so patently excessive under 'Instructions to file Action' that he exercised his discretion unjudicially.
- Whether the Deputy Registrar was legally competent to tax the bill under the Advocates' Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules.
- Whether costs incurred for correspondence with the Rent Control Board should have been disallowed as costs between solicitor and client.
Orders
- Appeal partly allowed.
- Bill remitted to the Registrar with instructions to disallow items Nos. 15, 16, 17, 22 and 23.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
Cases cited (4)
- S. K. Patel v Jetha & Mulji (1944/45) XXI K.L.R. 27
- Hasham Kara v Karmali (1946/47) XXII K.L.R. 1
- Zala & Zala (1946/47) XXII K.L.R. 6
- Kalyanjee v M. M. Stores (Civil Appeal No. 24/47) XXIV K.L.R. Pt. I, 47
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.